Category: Serbia

  • Legitimate Interest for Personal Data Processing for “Google Maps” and “Google Earth”

    During 2020, the Regional Court of Itzehoe (Germany) enacted a judgment in case no. 10 O 84/20, under which “Google” has a legitimate interest by virtue of Article 6(1)(f) GDPR to publish images of personal property for the needs of its services “Google Maps” and “Google Earth”.

    Legality of processing under GDPR

    In accordance with Article 6 of GDPR, processing (of personal data) is legitimate only in case and to the extent to which at least one of the prescribed requirements has been met, including the requirement that processing is necessary for legitimate interests pursued by controller or a third party, unless such interests are overridden by the interests of fundamental rights and freedoms of the subjects of data that require protection (of personal data), in particular where the data subject is a child, as stipulated in paragraph 1, item (f) of the respective article.

    Case 10 O 84/20

    In this procedure, the claim was filed with regards to the satellite images published on the subject services, for which the claimant, as the person whose property (building and its surroundings) is subject to the disputed images, required that “Google” pixelates or otherwise makes unrecognizable the content of the images, stating that they contained its personal data, while “Google” was not authorised for making and publishing them.

    However, the court rejected the stated claim and found that the interest of the controller in continuing to use the images outweighed the interest of the data subject, i.e., interest in making the property unrecognizable.

    Namely, according to the finding of the court, there is a need of the general public to look at the world from the above by using the services of “Google” as personal data controller, while there is no particular connection between the appearance of the photographed building and other personal data of its owner (e.g., its name and address).

    Legitimate interest of the controller in domestic law

    Under the provisions of the Law on Personal Data Protection (Official Gazette of RS no. 87/2018) (“the Law”), which are prescribed according to the GDPR, processing shall be lawful only if one of the following conditions has been met:

    • the subject of data has given consent to the processing of his/her personal data for one or more specified purposes;
    • processing is necessary for enforcement of the agreement concluded with the subject of data or for undertaking the activities, at the request of the data subject, prior to conclusion of the agreement;
    • processing is necessary for the purpose of adhering to the legal obligations of the controller;
    • processing is necessary for the purpose of protecting vital interests of the data subject or another natural person;
    • processing is necessary for the purpose of performing the activities in public interest or enforcing legally prescribed authorizations of the controller;
    • processing is necessary for the purpose of exercising legitimate interests of the controller or a third party, unless such interests are outweighed by the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the subject of data that require personal data protection, notably if the subject of data is a minor.

    In relation thereto, by application of our Law one may assume the same, e.g., when it comes to persons with residence and/or domicile in the Republic of Serbia – legitimate interest of the controller is not outweighed by the interest of the subject of data; however, the legitimate interest needs to be estimated in each particular case, which can be done by using the form prepared by our Commissioner for Information of Public Importance and Personal Data Protection.

    This article is to be considered as exclusively informative, with no intention to provide legal advice. If you should need additional information, please contact us directly.

    By Ivana Ruzicic, Partner, and Lara Maksimovic, Senior Associate, PR Legal

  • Drafting the Playbook in Serbia: A Buzz Interview with Andjelka Todorovic of Wolf Theiss

    Preparedness and adaptability are the Serbian keys to doing business in a changing and challenging environment, according to Partner Andjelka Todorovic of Law Office Miroslav Stojanovic, in cooperation with Wolf Theiss.

    “The overall feel in the Serbian market is that we have a certain level of preparedness in case of disruption,” Todorovic begins. “Globally, we are still on the back end of the COVID-19 pandemic, the world is affected by the conflict in Ukraine and, with the evolving energy crisis, these are not very promising circumstances. Our local market is therefore having to constantly adapt, but Serbs are good at doing business in a changing environment – you can even call it a cultural trait.”

    According to Todorovic, one of the things the country has to deal with is that, many months after a parliamentary election, there is still formally no government. She explains: “We do not expect a change in government, but we are in limbo politically. A lot of legislative action which will affect project development and investment is waiting for the appointment of new ministers.”

    “Still, a positive example of moving forward, even with a delay, comes from the Ministry of Mining and Energy,” Todorovic points out. “We now have almost a complete set of renewable energy legislation that introduces auctions for premiums and makes way for prosumers.” The timing of the first auction is in the air at the moment, she notes, “but developers are ready for the 400-megawatt wind power projects that have been approved for a new round of incentivized investment in renewables. I am pleased to see regulation on biomass kicking into gear and being implemented at a utility-scale, as this is a resource with a lot of untapped potential in Serbia.”

    Where Todorovic would like to see more movement, however, is on telecoms. “We have been waiting for the new law for ages,” she reports. “The drafts that are in development are quickly outdated and have to be revised again before they even go into the procedure.” The average income in Serbia has gradually increased over the years, she says, and “we have become a market for smart homes and connected cars. Both the regulator and we, as lawyers, apply European best practices – and have even created our own – because our current laws do not correspond to the needs of these new technologies.”

    Speaking about the reliance on European standards, Todorovic says a key area of interest in Serbia is ESG. According to her, “you will not get financing unless your business meets EU thresholds, which is a complex task.” There are no regulations in Serbia dealing with ESG as it is known at the European level, she says. “However, as with everything, we made a playbook of our own out of the environmental and social regulations that we do have.”

    Finally, Todorovic gives a personal view of a shift she sees in client work. “Over the years, Serbia was known for privatizations and public-to-private transactions that were the highest value transactions in the market, but that era is ending,” she says. “There will always be public infrastructure projects and there are still a few stubborn public companies in need of a professional investor. However, the value and overall percentage of private-to-private transactions we work on is ever increasing.”

    “It is not news that Serbia has become fertile ground for companies in innovative sectors, communications, and software development. I expect to see some very interesting M&A deals for private hospitals and in the pharmaceuticals sector, in agriculture and food production, and, of course, the automotive industry,” Todorovic concludes.

  • Amendments of the Tariff Methodologies in the Field of Natural Gas

    The Energy Agency of the Republic of Serbia (“AERS”) adopted three decisions on amendments of the following methodologies, on its session held on 7 July 2022:

    • Methodology for Determining Price for Access to the Natural Gas Transmission System,
    • Methodology for Determining Price for Access to the Natural Gas Distribution System, and
    • Methodology for Determining Price for Public Supply of the Natural Gas.

    By these amendments, AERS harmonized the said methodologies with the new Regulation on Conditions for Delivery and Supply of Natural Gas (“Official gazette of the RS” no. 49/2022).

    The main amendment was made in respect to change of the measurement unit of natural gas when determining respective prices, and now, instead of m3 , the  kWh is used.

    Furthermore, by said decisions, operators of natural gas transmission/distribution system and public supplier are obliged to submit their decisions on new prices to AERS for approval, until 01 August 2022 at the latest. New prices shall be calculated by dividing current tariffs by 10,26 and will be applicable starting from the next gas year i.e., from 01 October 2022.

    By Marko Mrdja, Senior Associate, JPM Jankovic Popovic Mitic

  • Schoenherr Advises Banca Intesa Beograd on Big Fashion Park Project Financing

    Schoenherr has advised Banca Intesa Beograd on providing EUR 26 million loans to Israeli Big Group company Minel Kotlogradnja Real Estate.

    According to Schoenherr, “the loans will be used to refinance the development of a modern retail park Big Fashion Park and to finance the first phase of the residential project Big Fashion Residences. Both projects form part of a unique multifunctional concept combining a retail park, a residential area – developed on the retail park’s rooftop, and a business zone, located next to the Belgrade riverside.”

    Intesa Sanpaolo company Banca Intesa Beograd is a bank operating in Serbia.

    The Schoenherr team was led by Attorney-at-Law Jelena Arsic and Associate Marko Kostic.

  • Transfer of Copyright over the Work of Authorship and Computer Program (“Software”) in Employment Relationship

    Today, perhaps more than ever before, commercial use of Software is of great value and many Software developers design and develop Software for licensing or sale to end users, or those serving a commercial purpose in an ever-growing market.

    Computer program is a sequence or set of instructions in a programming language for a computer to execute. It represents one component of software, including the documentation and other intangible components. On the other hand, a software is a set of programs that enables the hardware to perform a specific task. Therefore, technical difference exists between the two, meaning that software represents a set of computer programs, but for these purposes, computer program, accompanied components and software will collectively be addressed as “Software”.

    This substantial setting of Software’s commercial use has been duly recognized by the Law on Copyright and Related rights (‘’Law’’). Law, in general, regulates the rights of authors of literary, scientific, professional and artistic works (“copyright”), the right of performers, the publishing right, the rights of producers of phonograms, video grams, broadcasts, databases and the right of publishers of printed editions as rights related to copyright (‘’related rights’’), as well as the manner of exercising copyright and related rights and judicial protection of those rights. 

    The Law defines work of authorship (‘’copyright’’) as an original creation of the author, expressed in a certain form, regardless of its artistic, scientific or other value, its purpose, size, content and manner of expression, as well as the permissibility of public communication of its content. The Law prescribes that written works (e.g. books, brochures, articles, translations, computer programs in any form of their expression, including their preparatory design material and other) are, in particular, deemed as work of authorship. An author is a natural person who created work of authorship and is presumed as holder of rights over the work enjoying moral and property rights over his work of authorship from the moment of its creation, pursuant to the Article 8 of Law. However, apart from the author alone, the holder of the rights can be other person(s) or entity (who is not the author), if they acquired the rights over such work in accordance with the Law.

    General rule provided under the Article 98 of the Law stipulates that, if an author has created a work of authorship as an employee in the performance of his/her duties, the employer shall be authorized to disclose such work and to hold exclusive pecuniary rights on its exploitation within the scope of the employer’s registered business for the period of 5 (five) years from completion of that work, unless otherwise provided by employer’s general act or employment contract. The author has the right to special remuneration, depending on the proceeds of the work’s exploitation thereby. Upon expiration of the 5 (five) years term referred in Article 98 of Law, the author shall acquire the exclusive pecuniary rights on the work. This means that the employer has the exploitation rights over copyright work within first 5 (five) years as of its completion, whereas the author becomes the exclusive holder of exploitation rights after that term expires.

    On the other hand, when the work of authorship is a computer program (‘’Software’’), pursuant to Article 98 paragraph 4 of the Law, the permanent holder of all exclusive pecuniary rights on such work shall be the employer, unless otherwise provided in the employment contract. However, the author has the right to special remuneration and shall be the exclusive holder of pecuniary rights on the work, only if this is stipulated under the employment contract. This means that the basic rule of the Law concerning the mechanism on acquiring the rights over Software is different from obtaining the rights over copyright work in general, given that the employer becomes holder of exclusive pecuniary right over Software without any time limitation, unlike for other copyright work where the term of 5 years limit is imposed under the Law. 

    Legal presumption provided under the Law for acquiring rights by the employer over copyright work is limited in time and shall cease after expiration of 5 (five) years from the completion of work. On the contrary, when the employer acquires copyright over Software, legal presumption is set without any time limitation. The Law provides the possibility to regulate the transfer of rights differently under the employment contract. This underlines the possibility for both the employer to acquire pecuniary rights over copyright work without time restraint and, for the employee-author of the Software to retain its rights thereover, without transferring them to the employer.

    It is worth mentioning that the “purpose of transfer” doctrine, where, in general, if the third parties (e.g., freelancers, contractors, sub-contractors, shareholders, and management) were involved in the development of the specific copyright work, the underlying agreements would have to be assessed for the rights to be obtained by the employer. Without such agreements with third parties, there is a risk that any rights obtained by the employer are limited by the “purpose of transfer”. The doctrine, in essence, claims that an author of the work protected by copyright generally, only grants rights in respect of this work limited to what is required to achieve the “purpose” of the transfer at the time of the transfer. Subject doctrine is not practically relevant under the Serbian law, since the Law explicitly regulates the manner of transferring such rights.

    On the other hand, ordering party of the Software, which is produced on the grounds of the agreement with a legal nature of ”agreement on producing the ordered copyright work”, prescribed by the Law under the Article 95, acquires exclusive exploitation rights over the Software, while the remaining rights are retained by the engaged author, if not differently regulated under the agreement.  For example, freelance agreements have the identical legal nature and, when it comes to Software, same applies if it arose from the said agreement or, if the rights were acquired by the employer, pursuant to the general rule of the Law. Both provisions of the Article 95 paragraph 3 of Law, regulating the agreement on producing the ordered copyright work with exclusive right to acquire exploitation powers over Software and, Article 98 paragraph 4 of the Law, regulating the general rule of employer’s right to acquire Software, procure similar legal and commercial outcome. The Law provides the same transfer mechanism when it comes to pecuniary rights over Software, if obtained either on basis of employment or under the agreement on producing the ordered copyright work. However, in order to exclude any misunderstanding and/or possible disputes, even though it falls within the employer’s power to exploit developed Software, it is more beneficial to regulate the transfer mechanism more clearly and precisely by agreement or employment contract.

    When it comes to the general rule under the Law, it is clear that intellectual property rights transfer can be regulated differently under the employment contract, representing an exception from the general rule, i.e. if the employment contract explicitly provides that the employee shall withhold copyrights, application of the general rule is excluded. However, when drafting the employment contract, an explicit provision therein should stipulate that intellectual property rights, including but not limited to software, source code, all project documentation, etc. are transferred to the employer permanently and exclusively, without any subject, territory, time and scope restrictions. These provisions need to be entered into employment contract in order to exclude the application of the general rule under Law. Moreover, clear provisions under the employment contract regulating the employer’s legal ground to acquire intellectual property rights from the employee, furnish the employment relationship and prevent possible disputes, which may arise thereafter, affecting the commercial outcome for both employer and employee. It is of great, both commercial and legal importance, to regulate the relationship between employee, as an author, and employer, as a potential right holder, given the vague general stipulation provided under the Law and potential great value of Software on case-by-case basis.

    In conclusion, transfer of pecuniary rights over Software is explicitly regulated under the Law. However, the transfer of any other intellectual property rights and its exploitation is not directly provided under the Law, hence, the best commercial and legal assessment is detailed regulation under the employment contract, with intellectual property rights clause, where transfer would be regulated thoroughly, with respect to subject, scope, time, territory and/or whether the employer or employee would have any limitation on exploitation. Due to the general provisions on remuneration which employee may have pursuant to Article 98 paragraph 1 of the Law, it should be determined specifically under the employment contract whether this remuneration is consumed with the regular pay/salary or whether the employee has right to additional compensation as provided under the Law, irrespective of determined salary. Employment contract needs to be specific when regulating transfer, in order to avoid any possible disputes or interpretations due to the general rule under the Law, but also to secure more solid and long-standing employment relationship as an environment for further creation of Software and other original creations.

    By Aleksandar Popovic, Partner, and Milos Maksimovic, Senior Associate, JPM Jankovic Popovic Mitic

  • NSTLAW Represents Apatinska Pivara and Trebjesa on Obtaining Competition Exemption for Distribution

    NSTLAW has represented Molson Coors Group members Apatinska Pivara and Trebjesa on obtaining a competition exemption for a distribution agreement of Guinness beer.

    According to NSTLAW, Apatinska Pivara and Trebjesa, two of the largest breweries in Serbia and in Montenegro, are “partnering up with Diageo Ireland, one of the best known and largest beverage producers in the world. The competition authorities of Serbia and Montenegro have adopted exemptions of a restrictive agreement to allow for the distribution.”

    NSTLAW’s team included Senior Partner Nenad Stankovic and Associates Mitar Simonovic and Teodora Markovic.

     

  • Freshfields and BDK Advise One Equity Partners on Acquisition of Fortaco

    Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer and BDK Advokati have advised One Equity Partners on its acquisition of the Fortaco Group from Nordic investor Capman. Reportedly, Krogerus advised One Equity Partners in Finland.

    Closing is expected in the second half of 2022, pending regulatory approval, with the transaction spanning Germany, Belgium, Finland, Estonia, Hungary, Poland, Serbia, and Slovakia.

    According to Freshfields, “Fortaco is a leading strategic partner to the heavy off-highway equipment and marine industries offering technology, vehicle cabins, steel fabrications, and assemblies to global OEMs. Headquartered in Vantaa, Finland, Fortaco has factories across seven European countries, in addition to a joint venture with Tata AutoComp in India.”

    One Equity Partners is a private equity investment firm.

    The Freshfields team was led by Partner Arend von Riegen and Principal Associate Steffen Kleefass and included lawyers in Frankfurt and Brussels.

    BDK Advokati’s team was led by Senior Partner Vladimir Dasic and included Partners Milan Dakic and Bogdan Ivanisevic, Counsel Tomislav Popovic, and Junior Associate Milan Popovic.

  • The New Serbian Legal Framework for Internships to Be Adopted

    At the end of 2021, a public debate was held in the National Assembly on the Draft Law on Work Practice. The Draft itself is a reaction to relatively unfavourable basic labour market indicators, which predict that young people in Serbia lag behind their peers in the EU by 10%.

    To a certain extent, the Draft Proposal contains similar provisions as the Labour Law, such as mandatory elements of the internship contract, reasons for termination of internship, provisions governing discrimination in the workplace, etc. However, it provides some essential novelties in the Serbian legal system, which have been completely untackled under the current applicable Labour Law.

    Firstly, the Draft limits the length of the internship contract to a period of up to 6 months. This provision prevents the possibility of abusing the internship in terms of its duration, which so far has been common practice in Serbia.

    In addition, the internship may be established only once with the person who was not previously employed or engaged with the same or another employer in the profession that such person would perform during the internship. Moreover, although the internship contract does not establish an employment relationship, the employer shall pay the intern compensation in the amount of at least 2/3 of the minimum wage.

    Unlike the regular employee, the trainee is protected from overtime work since working hours are limited to a maximum of 40 hours per week. Also, the employer should hire a mentor who will manage the internship, provide guidelines and supervise the work of the intern. This is a useful provision and, as such, would be of tremendous benefit if it had been provided in the Labour Law – in particular, the part which governs the probation work.

    Finally, the Draft provides that the trainee is entitled to court protection if the employer has violated a right under the internship contract. In such a situation, the trainee first may require the employer to perform that right within 15 days from the delivery of the decision of violating the right. If the employer fails to do so, the trainee may initiate a lawsuit before the competent court within the next 15 days. In comparison to the right of a regular employee who is entitled to file a claim against the employer within 60 days, this deadline for trainees is twice as much less, without any rational reason.

    Despite this setback, the Draft generally protects young people from potential exploitation by employers and provides equal opportunities for first-time job seekers in the market. The effects of this in practice, however, remain to be seen. 

    This text is for informational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice. Should you require any additional information, feel free to contact us.

    By Kristina Pavlovic, Senior Associate, and Filip Stankovic, Trainee, Samardzic, Oreski & Grbovic

  • BDK Advokati Advises Epam on Serbian Expansion

    BDK Advokati has advised Epam Systems on the acquisition of IP assets and takeover and integration of employees of Serbian IT company Vivify Ideas. Drazic Beatovic & Stojic reportedly advised sellers Goran Prijic, Nedeljko Damnjanovic, and Milos Janjic on the deal.

    Epam is a US-headquartered digital transformation services and product engineering company. Vivify Ideas is a software development company.

    BDK Advokati’s team included Managing Partner Tijana Kojovic, Partner Bogdan Ivanisevic, Counsel Tomislav Popovic, and Senior Associate Marija Gligorevic.

  • New Grounds for Payment of Fees to Holders of Copyright and Related Rights

    Regulation on Amendments to the Regulation on Establishing the List of Technical Devices and Objects subject to Mandatory Payment of Special Fee to Holders of Copyright and Related rights was published in the Official Gazette of RS no. 49/2022 from 21 April 2022, and it entered into force on 29 April 2022. The respective piece of regulation has extended the list of technological devices for reproduction of audio and visual contents from the domain of copyright and related rights, i.e., for which, upon their purchase, a certain fee shall be paid (“the Regulation”).

    Content of the Regulation

    Namely, the Regulation establishes the List of technical devices and objects that are subject to mandatory payment of special fee to holders of copyright and related rights, which is printed along with the Regulation and represents its integral part. Accordingly, the list contains a number of different empty carriers of sound, pictures and text, as well as other devices that are subject to payment of the subject fee.

    According to the respective amendments to the Regulation, devices in domain of copyright and related rights, which will be subject to payment of fee upon their purchase, now include:

    • memory cards;
    • external hard discs;
    • devices with integrated hard disc, i.e., desktop computers, laptops, TVs with hard disc, DVD players with recording option and with hard disc, and Blue-ray player with recording option and hard disc;
    • tablets; and
    • smartphones.

    Right to special fee from import and sale

    The Regulation is a by-law enacted with the Law on Copyright and Related Rights (Official Gazette of RS no. 104/2009, 99/2011, 119/2012, 29/2016 – decision of CC and 66/2019) (“the Law”).

    According to the Law, a natural person shall be allowed, without author’s consent and without payment of author’s fee, to make copies of published work for personal and non-commercial purposes. Thus obtained copies may not be sold or used for any other form of public communication of the work.

    Nevertheless, when an author’s work is copied without author’s permit, the provisions of the Law stipulate that author of the work whose nature makes it likely to be multiplied by photocopying, recording on sound, picture or text carriers for personal and non-commercial use by natural persons (literary, musical, film works, etc.) shall be entitled to a special fee from import and/or sale of technical devices and empty carriers of sound, picture and text which may be reasonably expected to be used for such multiplication.

    Collective exercising of copyright and related rights

    Among other, the Law regulates collective exercising of copyright and related rights, i.e., through organisation for collective exercising of such rights.

    In relation thereto, the Law prescribes that the amount and manner of establishing the fee that the organisation for collective exercising of copyright and related rights shall charge to the users for certain forms of using copyright and objects of related rights, i.e., to payers of special fee, are established by the tariff as general act of such organisation.

    The amount of special fee paid by a sold or imported device and object from the list may not exceed 1% of its value, except for sale or import of empty compact discs, empty digital video discs, empty digital video discs with high definition, empty blue-ray discs, empty mini discs, empty audio tapes and empty video tapes, where the amount of special fee may not exceed 3% of their value.

    Conclusion

    Considering all of the above, payers of this fee, i.e., fee in relation to the stated devices, shall be importers and manufacturers of the said devices.

    They will pay the fee on the basis of calculation and invoice issued by SOKOJ, and the latter shall further distribute collected fees to other copyright and related organisations for collective exercising of author’s rights and holders of related rights, according to the agreements concluded with them.

    However, since no fee is established for new devices in the current Tariff for Exercising the Right to Special Fee (Official Gazette of RS no. 43/2013 and 8/2017), which is enacted by the Intellectual Property Office of the Republic of Serbia, SOKOJ announced that such fee will be defined in the upcoming period.

    This article is to be considered as exclusively informative, with no intention to provide legal advice. If you should need additional information, please contact us directly.

    By Lara Maksimovic, Senior Associate, PR Legal